No abstract

Due to the increasing demand for natural gas in many locations, there is often a need to increase the capacity of existing and future gas transmission pipeline networks. In some situations, there may be a possibility of increasing the operating pressure (e.g. uprating), but in others there may be no alternative but to lay new pipelines, often along the same route as an existing pipeline. If one pipeline fails in this situation, it is possible that a second parallel pipeline may also fail as a result. However, there is also increasing pressure on the use of land and therefore the minimum separations with which pipelines may be laid and operated safely when in parallel to other pipelines need to be considered. This paper describes work carried out as a collaborative project supported by gas transmission pipeline operators to provide guidance on the likelihood of failure of a pipeline, for a range of different conditions, following failure of an adjacent pipeline. A framework has been developed that identifies the sequence of events that could lead to failure of a parallel pipeline, including the possibility of escalation from a leak (or puncture) to a full bore rupture. Work has been carried out including large scale experiments and CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) modelling to enable the critical processes in the framework to be quantified. This methodology has been used to produce general guidelines for parallel pipeline assessments, in order to support the design of new parallel pipeline installations. The methodology has been developed specifically for parallel natural gas transmission pipelines. However, the principles are relevant to parallel pipelines transporting other substances, and consideration is given to how the methodology may be adapted for such circumstances. The methodology provides input to any risk assessments of parallel pipeline installations, to quantify the possible contribution to the failure frequency from escalation. General guidance developed using the methodology presented in this paper, has recently been included in the recommendations for steel transmission pipelines, IGEM/TD/1 (Edition 5), published by the Institution of Gas Engineers and Managers. However, where general recommendations are not achievable, the methodology may be applied to take site and pipeline-specific factors into account.

PIPESAFE is a knowledge based hazard and risk assessment package for gas transmission pipelines, which has been developed jointly by an international group of gas transmission companies. PIPESAFE has been developed from the BG (formerly British Gas) TRANSPIRE package, to produce an integrated assessment tool for use on PCs. which includes a range of improvements and additional models backed by large scale experimentation. This paper describes the development of the PIPESAFE package, and the formulation and validation of the mathematical models included within it.

Ultraviolet radiation (UVR) exposure is the most important modifiable risk factor for skin cancer development. Although sunscreen and sun-protective clothing are essential tools to minimize UVR exposure, few studies have compared the two modalities head-to-head. This study evaluates the UV-protective capacity of four modern, sun-protective textiles and two broad-spectrum, organic sunscreens (SPF 30 and 50). Sun Protection Factor (SPF), Ultraviolet Protection Factor (UPF), Critical Wavelength (CW), and % UVA- and % UVB-blocking were measured for each fabric. UPF, CW, % UVA- and % UVB-blocking were measured for each sunscreen at 2 mg/cm2 (recommended areal density) and 1 mg/cm2 (simulating real-world consumer application). The four textiles provided superior UVR protection when compared to the two sunscreens tested. All fabrics blocked erythemogenic UVR better than the sunscreens, as measured by SPF, UPF, and % UVB-blocking. Each fabric was superior to the sunscreens in blocking full-spectrum UVR, as measured by CW and % UVA-blocking. Our data demonstrate the limitations of sunscreen and UV-protective clothing labeling and suggest the combination of SPF or UPF with % UVA-blocking may provide more suitable measures for broad-spectrum protection. While sunscreen remains an important photoprotective modality (especially for sites where clothing is impractical), these data suggest that clothing should be considered the cornerstone of UV protection.

To gain an understanding of the risks associated with a hydrogen pipeline failure, Air Products commissioned GL Industrial Services UK to perform two experiments where a buried 6″ diameter pipeline at an initial pressure of 60 bar was intentionally failed using an explosive charge to generate a full bore release of hydrogen gas from two open ends, simulating a pipeline rupture event in which a ground crater is formed naturally in the surrounding soil by the released gas. The first experiment was performed with the pipe buried 1m deep in a typical soil and the second experiment was performed with a 1m deep backfill of a mixture of sand and soil. The hydrogen released was ignited immediately following the pipeline failure. Following initiation of each experiment, the properties of the hydrogen gas release and resulting fire were measured. The two experiments were conducted under similar conditions, with the main differences being the nature of the soil used for the pipeline backfill and the wind speed (which was significantly higher in the first experiment). The initial pipeline pressure was very similar in the two experiments, with complete depressurisation of the gas pipeline and reservoir taking place over a period of approximately 80 seconds. Maximum flame lengths of up to approximately 100m were measured in each experiment. A number of previous experimental programmes have been carried out by GL in order to investigate the fire characteristics of natural gas releases from ruptured pipelines, conducted under nominally similar conditions. Recently, experiments of this type were also conducted to investigate releases of mixtures of hydrogen and natural gas. The paper will present a high level overview of the results including a discussion of the observed differences between the release and fire behaviour of the different gases.